I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan but...
 

...this seems to be a pretty good position.

http://slate.com/id/2112712/

Safe, Legal, and Never
Hillary Clinton's anti-abortion strategy.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005, at 8:53 PM PT

Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it.

"Safe, Legal, and Rare" has been the standard liberal position the whole time, and that is just the realistic version of "Safe, Legal, and Never". If you want it to be rare, that's the same as saying that in ideal circumstances it would be never. Republicans have tried, with some success, to make the pro-choice position seem to be pro-abortion, but that's a misnomer. People are either pro-prohibition or anti-prohibition which is related, but distinct, from how frequently you think it ought to happen. Clinton is trying to clarify the issue.

The theocratic position on many "morals" issues is to legally enforce what would ideally be the preferred choice among many, ignoring the fact that attempting to legally enforce that sort of choice is usually more harmful than letting some people choose "wrongly". Intensely personal decisions like that are best handled by the person, with the help (if wanted) of their family and church (if any).

The thing that really gets to me about abortion is whats behind it--- why should people be able to decide what people can and can't do, simply because they feel it is immoral? Takeing into account that this event has no adverse effects and does not result in the changing of ANYONE's life, except for that of the would-be mother, why are people so adament on having it banned completely? Take this example- A woman has sex. Her condom doesn't work. She gets pregnant but doesn't know until a month later, a time when all the possible after-conception contaceptives do not work. Why should she be punished for something that is completely out of her control? Why should someone force her to go through surgery or the pains of child birth for a child she doesn't necessarily want? Who decided that if you get pregnant you are required to have that child? Who decided that you have to have sex in marriage and it is only for children? Just a list of questions I want pro-prohibition people to answer.

i don't support a complete prohibition, but devil's advocate here... why should it be legal to kill the fetus the on one day, but it's a felony to kill it a few days later? what is the substantial difference between 1 day before and one day after delivery?

*Quizzical expression*

Well. That's what many laws are - the majority of the population agreeing that something is bad and prohibiting it. The majority of folks don't think it's nice to murder people so we have a law against that. The majority of folks don't think public nudity is good so we have a law against that. There's a whole bunch like that.

The liberal position is pro-abortion.

Pro-"Choice" is a marketing strategy.

Step one in getting this country less divided on abortion will have to be understanding the other sides beliefs. If you don't get that most Americans believe abortion ends a human life you are as much a part of the problem as your counter-part on the life side who doesn't get your belief that human rights appear on the sunny side of the birth canal. You don't have to believe it, but you'd better understand it. There are folks who believe that the fetus is human who are willing not to impose their belief on everyone else but you alienate them with your rhetoric.

No, you're wrong. The vast majority of people, including me, is pro-life. I, however, do not want to reinstate prohibition, so I am also pro-choice. The only real division is pro- or anti-prohibition. And anti-prohibition is obviously pro-choice.

Pro-life is the marketing strategy.

Remove the emotion from the argument by substituting the word "smoking" for "abortion."

I'm a non-smoker. I think smoking is a BAD IDEA. I wish nobody smoked. I support some restrictions on smoking, but I do not think smoking should be illegal because I think people should be able to make that decision for themselves.

According to your logic, I'm pro-smoking. That's absurd.

One could make the same argument for being "Pro-Life." The vast majority of politically conservative pro-lifers only seem to care about the "child" while it is still in womb. Once it's born, bye bye, you're on your own. Isn't it still "life" after it is born?

Just to get my viewpoint into the ring ...

I support safe, legal abortion. I believe that taking the step backwards and making the process illegal will do us more harm as a society than good. You can't unfuck the virgin.

I believe that life begins at conception. I do not believe that there is a magic line at 3 months prior to which a "fetus" is "tissue".

It's a baby, even before it looks like one.

If you have an abortion, you are killing your baby.

There's no sugar coating of that particular statement, nor do I think there should be when discussing the "procedure" as an "option."

(and, incidentally, I don't typically use "pro-life" those folks are just anti-abortion. I'm not a big fan of abortion protestors on the whole, as I have yet to see scads of them step up to adopt children of women they talk/scare out of abortions, or to provide any real supportive services to such women. A lot of screaming and huge posters of bloody, aborted fetuses does not an effective movement for change make.)

No more needs to be said. You support the liberal position. The reasoning for it is immaterial. People have a wide spectrum of reasoning for opposing prohibition, ranging from yours to "female empowerment". The liberal position is that it needs to be legal, and people need to be able to make the choice themselves, and people can use their own reasoning and reasons when making that choice.

All this is just semantics so I would like to get my own semantics in here. This is the terminology I prefer.

People who agree with me: caring, thoughtful and correct

People who disagree with me: heartless evil morons who don't understand the world

If I am following your logic here, you support safe, legal baby killing? If you truly believe a fetus/zygote/embryo is a human being, shouldn't you be opposed to abortion in every case? You can't have it both ways.

Sure I can. It's my opinion, and conflicted or not I'm sticking to it.

garnet, that isn't exactly true. i also believe life begins at conception. i also don't support a complete prohibition on the abortion. if a woman wants to end the life of the baby inside her, that is her choice. until and unless, a VAST majority of americans decide that the time for legal abortion is over. the laws on our books should be about the will of the majority of the people, whether or not they properly align with MY morals is MY problem.

that being said, the pro-choice/pro-abortion rhetoric pisses me off. "it" is alive. "it" is a human embryo that would live without intervention. "it" is murder. call it what it is and make your choices.

i still think the anti-abortion movement should find the next young girl who throws her newborn into a dumpster and defend her in court. just to find out what exactly the difference is. if it can be legally aborted at 10AM, why is it a felony to kill it at 11AM?

I believe that Louis Pasteur answered the "when life begins" question. Life doesn't begin at conception. Nor does it begin at implantation, nor quickening, nor birth. Life is present the entire time. And, in case there's any question, it's human life the entire time.

Conception is certainly an important milestone. But nature doesn't have a lot of respect for the zygote. A lot of them, I believe a majority, don't even make it to implantation. It's hard for me to work up a lot of moral outrage over a few undifferentiated cells which most likely won't make it anyway. Potential? The potential is there the whole time, even before conception. Following the potential argument leads you to "every sperm is sacred" -- or at least, "every egg is sacred". So with that, I find there simply is no bright line before which it's reasonable to say "abortion's no big deal" and after which "abortion is akin to infanticide". You can pick one as the Roe v. Wade court did, but everything short of a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-life" side, and anything close to a total ban will tick off the so-called "pro-choice side", so you can't win.

Not to beat this into the ground or anything, but I've never really understood that position. If you believe human life begins at conception, you're saying a fetus is just as valuable as an adult human being. Isn't it therefore murder to have an abortion? And shouldn't this murder be illegal, just as it is if you murder an adult? Sorry, I think that's hypocritical.

Right Russ, I've heard that 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously fail to implant.

Ergo, holding to your rhetorical correctness L123, more babies have been flushed down sewer systems than have ever been born live, and most women are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

garnet, that is the point. I believe that it is murder. the vast majority of america doesn't. so, i'm not on a major campaign to force america to comply with my belief system. america's laws don't have to fall into line with my beliefs. my actions only have to fall into line with america's laws.

as i've said before, the only abortion related argument that really gets to me is the idea of minors being able to have abortions without parental/guardian notification. my attitude is that if a minor can't sign up for extracurricular school activity without parental consent (because they aren't mature enough to make all decisions on their own) then, maybe they shouldn't be able to have a surgical procedure without parental notification.

Sorry, it's still hypocritical. Suppose the majority of Americans thought child molesting should be legal. Would you be OK with that, just because it's what the majority thinks? Either it's murder or it's not.

i think that is taking it back to a ridiculous starting point. you are talking about normal biological functions. some implant, some don't. the ones that do, result in a woman peeing on a stick, and either crying with joy, or absolute terror. it is at that point in time, when a woman knows she is pregnant that she now has to make her choice. the abortion debate begins with - a woman is pregnant.

no, it wouldn't be ok. i would still believe it is wrong. but again, if the majority of americans support it, i do not have the ability to force my belief system on them.

let's look at this from the flipside. if i supported forcing my belief system on all of america, in situations where it is counter to the will of the majority, you would be condemning me as being a closed minded fundamentalist christian, trying to strip people's rights from them.


i believe abortion is murder. i believe that our society as a whole would be better without it. the majority of america disagrees. therefore, my beliefs probably won't line up with the laws. i have the choice to stay in america and accept it, or leave and go to some mythical place where we all have the same beliefs.

i believe child molestation is wrong. a majority of america agrees. it is illegal. my beliefs and our laws are in tune. happy day.

i can hold strong beliefs without trying to force them on you. if strict anti-abortion laws were enforced without almost universal support for the reasoning behind the laws, then it would do nothing but push abortion clinics into the back alleys and harm many more people. that is not a better situation than having a safe, legal abortion clinic in operation.

Why don't you stand up for what you believe in rather that following the crowd like a sheep? Some people may condemn you as a "fundamentalist," but so what? That's their problem.

I disagree with pro-lifers' stand on abortion, but at the same time I respect anybody who stands up for and lives their life according to what they believe in, regardless of whether or not it's a popular political position.

You established the starting point, I simply noted the ridiculous in it.

IIRC, involuntary manslaughter is when you kill another person through your actions even if you didn't know for certain that it would lead to death. I don't know for sure but I believe there are women who produce eggs but don't have a lifestyle that would encourage implantation. Marathon runners. If everything you've said is the case, you need to bring these women up on charges or explain to me what the conceptual difference is.

uh, garnet - i do stand up for what i believe in. i believe in allowing the people of a nation to decide the direction of the nation.


i openly discuss my beliefs on issues. it is rare, but sometimes people do change their views after discussing issues with other people. carrying picket signs and handing out pamphlets isn't exactly in tune with my personality. besides, how many minds have been changed because of the protestors? not many, i would say, at least not in favor of the protestors agenda.

like i said, to force anti-abortion laws on a nation where the people don't agree with my view on it will only push the procedure into the back alleys. you cannot legislate morality. if the american culture were to change enough that the abortion debate is irrelevant because people no longer wanted the procedure... well i guess the laws, wouldn't really matter, would they? but to force prohibition on an unwilling society would be counter productive. as in most areas, i believe this is an issue better handled through personal interaction than government regulation.

UT - i don't even know where to go with this line of reasoning. i state that a woman who knowingly aborts her fetus is committing murder. as stated above, i don't support a prohibition on the action. you are taking this back to a point before there is even a possible choice available.

i guess i don't understand what point you are trying to bring home to me. that a fetus isn't a baby? is there anything substantially different between the newborn baby immediately before and immediately after leaving it's mother?

Part of the problem with the whole governance issue is that the gov't isn't supposed to do what is popular, but what is right. People keep losing track of that point.

What is necessary at this point is for an arbitrary time in the pregnancy to be assigned as the 'do not abort' point. Any time after that, barring health risks, it should be against the law to abort. Any time before that it should be legal, or possibly have a modified penalty of some sort.

The only way to assess that point in time is based on physiological evidence as to when the point of viability, the ability to maintain basic life functions, is reached. The government's responsibility is to pretects its current citizens and insure that it has more in the future.

Now, the only way that that is going to happen is if some legislator actually has the ethical capability to actually look at the issue in the right light, as an ethical issue, not an issue to generate more votes.

That concludes today's political fantasy...

No, I'm trying to bring home the point that you believe that a zygote and a fetus IS a baby. I don't care to change your mind, I'm just exploring it. If a woman knowingly kills her baby, it is murder. THEREFORE, if a woman unknowingly kills her baby, it is involuntary manslaughter. Why don't you agree?

There is an extremely substantial and significant difference between the baby one minute before birth and one minute after. Your willing blindness to this difference is alarming, but again, I'm not trying to change your mind.

the problem there TS is this isn't a right/wrong issue like child molestation. everybody except absolute nuts agrees screwing kids is wrong.

before this is a right/wrong issue, there would have to be a consensus on living human/not living human. then you can move on to making the laws, because killing a human has already been accepted as a wrong action. if it is human - it would be a crime. if it isn't - no harm no foul.

that is like saying the justice system is about right/wrong. it isn't, its about legal/illegal, proveable/nonproveable - ask any lawyer. the government is supposed to follow the will of the people.

UT - once you have looked at the ultrasound of your son 2 days before birth and held him within minutes of being born, the physical differences kind of melt away. my son, would have survived if he had been born 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks before his real birth time. he would still be the person he is. what makes the exact birth minute so crucial?

as far as the difference in a known pregnancy and a fertilized egg that doesn't implant? i guess i don't know. i guess i don't really care that much. because again, i'm not trying to have abortion outlawed, and i don't look poorly upon those who've had abortions, i'm not overly concerned about the legal status of a woman who had a fertilized egg that flowed out and into the sewer.

i'm not being a smartass, but i'm more interested in choices that are made than in possibilities of what is life, what isn't.

To what extent should the courts be a distillation of public opinion on a moral issue, and to what extent should they lead opinion?

Clearly changing the public sentiment on a complex moral issue like abortion is much harder than getting a few judges into place on the right bench; is judicial activism ever a proper use of the court?

Think about the civil rights charge. The courts stood well in front of the public sentiment in many parts of the country, and yet I think most people would argue that it was the right move. The intervention of the courts was a necessary step in order to both safeguard the immediate rights of the minority population, and also to impose a behavioral injunction on the majority population that I think has been very successful in changing a generation's view of race.

I don't know that the crusade against abortion will be as well fought along those lines. I think the explosion of "pro-life" crisis pregnancy centers is a great example of the best possible way approach this problem. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong, and the worst possible choice for both mother and child? Then give the mother real options! These place provides counseling, prenatal care, in many instances they can provide housing and financial support for mothers who are unable to remain in their present circumstances (kicked out of the house, abusive spouse, etc.); then they help the mother through the adoption process if she chooses not to raise the baby herself.

This is an answer that both reduces the number of abortions (isn't that the real goal?) by giving compassionate support for other real options, and also changes the public sentiment by demonstrating a face to the pro-life movement that isn't waving bloody signs and harassing women walking into clinics already under great duress.

I guess this long rambling post boils down to this - I am staunchly pro-life, but my goal is to lower the number of mothers who choose abortion, and I think changing public sentiment and offering real alternatives is a much more effective way to do that than getting a few judges on the right bench.

-sm

ding,ding,ding. once again sm is better than i am at putting thoughts to print in a coherent manner.

Because up until that moment, there is another person involved who also has rights to be considered. The mother.

A question that just occured to me, and don't try to assault me for it, is if choice is such an issue then why is reducing the number of abortions of such importance? I'm not leaning either way in this question, but seriously wondering why.

she is just as responsible for a newborn's wellbeing as she was immediately before the birth. why shouldn't it be the mother's right to kill the child within one hour of birth?

keep in mind - i am not arguing in favor of a ban on abortion.

Patently false; the mother's responsibility changes enormously after birth, otherwise adoption would not be possible.

"Explosion"? Where?

I agree that it's a good idea to these women options, but facilities offering real-world, practical solutions and help to these women after the baby is born are few and far between. The vast majority of the "crisis pregnancy centers" are run by extremist Chsristians who guilt their patrons into believing that abortion is wrong under any circumstances, and give them little if any assistance once the baby is born.

If anyone can offer solutions and assistance to pregnant women before and after the child is born, that's wonderful and I'm all in favor of it. I'm not convinced that the goal of many crisis pregnancy centers is helping women, children, or society--but rather pushing an agenda.

well, that was phrased objectively. i know a couple of people that work in these centers, and as far as a i can tell their "agenda" is to help young women who are looking for assistance. but if they're christians, they must be extremists using every dirty trick in the book to advance a darkhearted cause.

No the abortion debate also begins when a woman has been raped and might be pregnant, but can't get the morning after pill because her pharmacist thinks being forced to carry a rapists baby to term is advancing the cause of motherhood.

cite? the only pharmacist in town? no ER? i believe the standard rape kit has the "morning after" pill.

why should a pharmacist be compelled to provide a service that is immoral, in his view?

rich, we aren't talking about outlawing anything here. certainly not outlawing an abortion to kill a rapists baby so you can put that scenario away.

Well, one pharmacist had a different interpretation.

I don't know about it being a standard in a rape kit, since it is not yet an over the counter medication. It might be standard for a doctor to prescribe it, but a pharmacy has to fill the perscription, which was a problem here. Can you imagine having to run around ot fill a perscription like that after a rape? Can you imagine what it would feel like to be turned away by the pharmacist? Maybe she should have told him the circumstances in detail?

I thought we had gotten over this whole tendency to re-traumitize the rape victim thing back in the 80's.

Fortunately, the pharmacy also has the right to fire the pharmacist .

A) - the pharmacist has the right not to prescribe the offensive material, so long as he is willing to face the consequences.
B) - the pharmacy has the right to terminate his employment for any reason they choose.

The core question
 

For a murder to happen, a person has to be killed. If the an abortion is defined as murder, and the victim as a person, then much, much more should change to be consistent with the stance that the rights of the fetus/embryo/zygote include more that just protection from murder.

I find the prospect that the abortion of a zygote, while certainly “alive”, should, could be considered “murder” as sensible as the prospect that a woman carrying this zygote should be counted as two people in any other circumstance. If she drinks, smokes, or does any other legal physical activities minors are prohibited from, is she breaking the law? If “it’s” a person, and murder-able, why--no--how can the discussion stop there? Which brings me to…

The core question in the abortion debate:
"When does human personhood begin?"
A description of all viewpoints

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

This is a calm, reasoned, informed discussion of the facts and opinions on all sides. I do not know of a “bright line” that separates one side from the other. I expect that search for such a line will be futile and acrimonious, because such a line does not exist. It is a range, not a point. At either end of the spectrum, the decision is clear, but in the immortal words of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, “What was that part in the middle?”. The middle (range) is the part where lots of stuff happens, including personhood. That’s where the answer lies, along a continuum. After all, we’re human beings, taking nine months to develop. For me the emphasis here is on the being, as an active verb, as well as a noun. We don’t talk of dead people as “human was’es” or of a pregnant woman’s baby as a “human will-be’s”.

In the Roe v Wade decision, dividing the pregnancy into trimesters seems a wise, Solomonic decision, the best possible resolution in a minefield of difficult choices. To consider the independent viability of the fetus in the first trimester to be approximately zero, the court concluded that the decision was a medical judgment to be decided by the woman and her physician. In the third trimester where viability is much more likely permitted the court to consider a fetus more like a person and entitled to more recognition as such.

The search for a single marker to define personhood, and from that murder, and medical procedure and everything in between is doomed.

Saying “I’m pregnant” doesn’t work in carpool lanes either, (except in California, predictably).

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20041122.html

Not if Bush has anything to say about it:
Luckily, he doesn't have complete say:

I also know a few people who work in a "crisis pregnancy center" through my niece's experience a couple years ago. She had already decided to terminate her pregnancy (she was 18 at the time) but went to one of these centers just to see what they had to say--afterall it was free, and "they sounded nice on the phone."

All I know is that I got a phone call from a crying, freaked out teenager who was just told that she was going to burn in hell, had bible quotes thrown in her face and was lied to about the rate of fetal development.

Hey, I'm sure your friends are real swell people and they'll go straight to heaven for their efforts. I hate what these assholes did to my niece, and thus the term "crisis pregnancy center" has a bit of a different meaning to me.

Can you please quote where I said all Christians are evil? I don't recall saying that.

i don't speculate on who is going to be in heaven or hell. that is a personal thing.

but as far as your judgement of CPC's goes... if someone makes broadbrush, overgeneralized statements and assumptions of a minority group based on the actions of a few members of said group, you would call that person an ignorant racist. you do the same thing in regards to CPC counselors (who are generally christians) and it is acceptable? still seems ignorant and presumptive to me.

i am sorry that your niece dealt with ignorant fools, but that does not mean that all CPC's are the same.

What exactly do you think "crisis pregnancy counselors" actually do? For the most part they are Christians (as you admit) who try to talk women out of getting abortions because it is "morally wrong." Do you think they care if that is the best decision for the woman or girl involved? No, they just don't want anyone to have an abortion, regardless of the situation, and for the most part their arguments are based on religion. To me, that's promoting an agenda--not helping people.

I'm sure the counselors you know are sweet as hell to you at church on Sunday, but have you ever sat before one of 'em as a confused teenager looking for OBJECTIVE answers to your questions? Perhaps you might see the situation in a different light if you had.

The opposite of fundamentalism is feminism.

I am adamantly pro choice, which is pro woman, a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. This is a personal, private medical issue.

Unwanted pregnancies will ALWAYS occur. Women will ALWAYS have abortions, always NEED abortions. The idea that we "just need to get back to chastity" (which I actually heard uttered by a prolife representative on the radio 2 weeks ago) When was that exactly? Are we talking belts here? I worry when the good old days are medieval.

So I've been thinking about the idea that the opposite of fundamentalism, here, in Kabul, in Tehran, is Feminism. Anyone else out there consider themselves a feminist?

Not since the definition of feminist somehow morphed into "Man-hating (lesbian) bitch".

But then I'm also not ashamed of having been born Caucasian.

Yeah, I need a good working definition of "feminism".

Feminist= Man hating lesbian bitch....hmmm. sounds like someone is hopped up on the fear-based, misogynistic Limbaugh soundbyte. That's no definition. Supporting women's human rights doesnt deny men theirs. Get over it.

From the dictionary:
American Heritage
Feminism:
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Princeton:
1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women
2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women

Actually I developed my ideas regarding feminism during the ERA campaigns.

Flavored by being hoodwinked with a "Social Psychology" course that turned out to be "feminist social psychology."

I am woman, hear me roar, without the need to have some sort of affirmative action programs to get me ahead.

Yeah, but you're strong. A lot of women are...easily impressed (myself). I admire you. You've no need for nonsense bullshit man-stuff. A lot of women, apparently, do need this. You can't count yourself amongst the rabble. You, wolf, are a different breed of woman.

supporting human rights for women makes you a feminist? i thought it was just part of being an intelligent, unbiased individual.

Well, obviously man-hating lesbian bitches will be feminists. But that does not imply that a feminist is a man-hating lesbian bitch. Equivalently, all environmentalists aren't eco-terrorists, all pro-choice people don't try to browbeat people into having abortions, all abortion prohibitionists aren't shooting doctors, all NRA members aren't in the Michigan Militia, all gun-control avocates aren't looking for a complete ban on guns, all Christians aren't Bush supporters, and all Muslims aren't terrorists.

A black and white view of the world doesn't provide much insight.

Well, hell! Happy Monkey, you took all the fun away!

So you are a feminist! Surely you've enjoyed some of the needed action....like the campaign for your right to vote, or your education, or investment in medical research regarding your body.... You might not agree with all the tactics, but you seem to support the acknowlegement of your basic rights. And that makes you the most common, powerful, non lesbian bitch type , (Ok with maybe shades of Annie Oakley), Feminist.

"feminist" is a word for intelligent and unbiased in one particular issue. It is, of course, unfortunate that such a word was ever necessary, but stupidity and bias is very strong, and has to be chipped away one issue at a time.

I love men who are feminists. :) As they are generally, intelligent and fair and loving.